I think the government needs to stop calling ANY SINGLE UNION OF TWO PEOPLE marriage. How many problems would be solved if the word "marriage" was eliminated from government laws? Then, there is a true separation of church and state. Churches can call the joining of two people together marriage, but the state will only recognize it as a legalized, joint-union.

I agree, and I'm very disappointed that the gay community chose the "marriage" route. They could have fought for all people, straight and gay, to have the right to define the terms of their relationship, by expanding the status of civil unions. But instead they just got on the "marriage" bandwagon, and defended traditionalism. They only thought of themselves, not their opportunity to contribute to more freedom and dignity for all.

I'm generally happy for gay marriage; in fact my sister is gay and married, and has a daughter, and our whole family has been very happy with it, and we visit each other all the time. But I just think it's anti-climatic, compared to how much greater the progress would have been, if we'd gotten the government out of the business of defining marriage entirely.

I'm sure that you, like the rest of us, have a few of those things too.

'Twas a cutlass swipe or an ounce of lead
Or a yawing hole in a battered head
And the scuppers clogged with rotting red
And there they lay I damn me eyes
All lookouts clapped on Paradise
All souls bound just contrarywise, yo ho ho and a bottle of rum!

Leftcoast 2 blocks from the beach, down the street from a green haze called Venice.

Posts

6,645

Originally Posted by Morsker

I agree, and I'm very disappointed that the gay community chose the "marriage" route. They could have fought for all people, straight and gay, to have the right to define the terms of their relationship, by expanding the status of civil unions. But instead they just got on the "marriage" bandwagon, and defended traditionalism. They only thought of themselves, not their opportunity to contribute to more freedom and dignity for all.

I'm generally happy for gay marriage; in fact my sister is gay and married, and has a daughter, and our whole family has been very happy with it, and we visit each other all the time. But I just think it's anti-climatic, compared to how much greater the progress would have been, if we'd gotten the government out of the business of defining marriage entirely.

That is the whole point as to why this is before the supreme court. You are saying we are doing it wrong, not at all we live in a society that defines it's laws by trial and courts of law. this is the only path to ensure all people have the same freedoms. Do you think that the black civil rights movement only helped Black people? By taking the stance they paved the way for equality of all races in America, it is now illegal to discriminate against Asians, Native Americans, Semitics, Hindi, and anyone else. All thanks to the Black Civil rights movement.

The difference is you dont choose to be black or white, but you choose to be gay

Michael Jackson choose to be white, but frankly if you can choose to be gay you where never straight. The reason I know the "homosexuality is a choice" argument is BS is because I know it is not a choice I could ever make, I simply am not wired that way. I find the thought of two men having sex to be repugnant. So I know that anyone why feels the opposite of me is not making a choice but is fundamentally different then I am in a significant way.

Some people are just gay. The sooner you come to except that the happier we'll all be.

It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shakes, the shakes become a warning.

Leftcoast 2 blocks from the beach, down the street from a green haze called Venice.

Posts

6,645

Originally Posted by stumpy

The Hebrews were stoning people waaaaay before Islam existed.

Umm actually, what would happen is if you where caught committing any of the crimes you had a choice you could leave the city/town you lived in or face trial by Rabbi. If you choose to flee you counted as dead to your family, but you cloud live as you wanted. The Ancient Hebrews had two cities dedicated for people who ran away.

Most of the time by the way it was because the person killed someone else. Homosexuality was frowned upon, and if you where gay moving to the city was your best choice anyway.

As for the Romans and the Greeks, they had a different view of sexuality. But then the pagans of the ancient world almost universally revered the Gay men as touched by a goddess.

A lot of federal US laws are based on opposite-sex marriage which prevents so many rights to gay US citizens and even prospective US residents. As it stands, there are tens of thousands of same-sex relationships being prevented from even physically existing in the US, and it is absolutely appalling. While straight US citizens can bring their partners into the US and live their lives with them, immigration laws are based on the notion of a man/woman marriage, so DOMA is literally preventing people from being together. The right to be with the one you love is such a basic and fundamental right, and cases like this is why DOMA has to be, and imo will be, overturned.

Michael Jackson choose to be white, but frankly if you can choose to be gay you where never straight. The reason I know the "homosexuality is a choice" argument is BS is because I know it is not a choice I could ever make, I simply am not wired that way. I find the thought of two men having sex to be repugnant. So I know that anyone why feels the opposite of me is not making a choice but is fundamentally different then I am in a significant way.

Some people are just gay. The sooner you come to except that the happier we'll all be.

my thoughts on the matter as well, and i am that polar opposite of you.

just think of all the extra women straight men will have, and how many more happy marriages* there will be without someone who is gay but afraid of society / in the closet, who gets married to a woman and has a terrible life full of misery?

Excellent, let's hope this ruling is in favour of repealing DOMA and allowing same-sex marriage!

Unfortunately, I suspect your Supreme Court will just take the easy way out and say that it's up to each state, resulting in a patchwork of laws for decades to come. But that's just a hunch on my part.

Unfortunately, I suspect your Supreme Court will just take the easy way out and say that it's up to each state, resulting in a patchwork of laws for decades to come. But that's just a hunch on my part.

Unfortunately, striking down DOMA doesn't make same-sex marriage suddenly into legal effect. It just makes it unable to be illegal.

I just feel sorry that the U.S. tends to lag so far behind when it comes to these issues. Don't Ask, Don't Tell gets struck down in the last year or so, whereas the equivalent was struct down around 20 years ago in places like Australia or Canada. And now it's 12 years behind on same-sex marriage, at the very least. But I guess that's what happens with such a high population of fundamentalists.

Unfortunately, I suspect your Supreme Court will just take the easy way out and say that it's up to each state, resulting in a patchwork of laws for decades to come. But that's just a hunch on my part.

Though that's certainly possible in the sense that SCOUS can be as absurd as it wants to be, I find it unlikely. The argument against DOMA is that it violates the Equal Protection clause; the court has to deal with that one way or another. Either discriminatory marriage laws are unconstitutional or they are not.

Originally Posted by 2nd Circuit

DOMA’s classification of same-sex spouses was not substantially related to an important government interest. Accordingly, we hold that Section 3 of DOMA violates equal protection and is therefore unconstitutional.

The cavemen were stoning other cavemen waaaaay before the Hebrews existed.... :P

Isn't it immature that you call him Donald "Dump"?
I agree, it's childish and stupid - and that's my point. it's meant as a deliberate mockery of his blatant disrespect via using "Crooked Hillary", and thus I can call him "Dump" since he dumps his campaign promises, dumps campaign managers, dumps his wives, wants to dump the first amendment, dumps common-sense war ethics and dumps the use of proper English in favor of a mongrel white-trash dialect.

I'm fine with gay couples being couples, I just dislike the attempt to misuse a word's definition. If for the entirety of the word "marriage" it was defined as "A union between two people" and not "A union between a man and woman" then I would be fine with them "getting married."

Sure, there's always the argument of "Just change the definition" etc, but I don't feel you should be forced to change the definition of a word just because a small group of people demand it. I'm fine with them having the same tax breaks and all that, but don't change the definition of a word.

You do realize that the US redefined what a person is to include women and nonwhites, yes? Until the Emancipation Proclamation and even during the Jim Crow period thereafter, slaves were considered 3/4 of a person and thus were excluded from rights offered to a person (or, to remove the legal speak, a white man of the time).

Getting married has become a secular colloquialism for a civil union just as much as it has been used to define Catholicism's union between a man and a woman (and even then, not all Christian sects hew to that definition, nor even do all Catholic churches). Changing the definition of a word is what you do in English as that word is used in wider context than what it was brought in for. For example, 'dude' used to refer to an elephant's penis. Now it's a very informal term of familiarity often used toward a male. 'Faggot' used to refer to a bundle of sticks. Now the most common use is as a pejorative toward homosexual men or people you frag in online shooters on X-Box. Words evolve, and in some cases, society evolves beyond frustratingly Neolithic standards set forth by a section of a holy scripture written by a man who was considered unnecessarily extremist even during his day.

If changing the definition of a word that the Roman Catholic church does not and never will have a total monopoly on is what it takes, that's what it takes and this is far from the first word to get an extra definition tacked on or expanded.

You do realize that the US redefined what a person is to include women and nonwhites, yes? Until the Emancipation Proclamation and even during the Jim Crow period thereafter, slaves were considered 3/4 of a person and thus were excluded from rights offered to a person (or, to remove the legal speak, a white man of the time).

Getting married has become a secular colloquialism for a civil union just as much as it has been used to define Catholicism's union between a man and a woman (and even then, not all Christian sects hew to that definition, nor even do all Catholic churches). Changing the definition of a word is what you do in English as that word is used in wider context than what it was brought in for. For example, 'dude' used to refer to an elephant's penis. Now it's a very informal term of familiarity often used toward a male. 'Faggot' used to refer to a bundle of sticks. Now the most common use is as a pejorative toward homosexual men or people you frag in online shooters on X-Box. Words evolve, and in some cases, society evolves beyond frustratingly Neolithic standards set forth by a section of a holy scripture written by a man who was considered unnecessarily extremist even during his day.

If changing the definition of a word that the Roman Catholic church does not and never will have a total monopoly on is what it takes, that's what it takes and this is far from the first word to get an extra definition tacked on or expanded.

As much as I agree with you, and I do so wholeheartedly, this was an unfortunate waste of text. SageKalzi left the thread on the second page since we were "attacking" him for his "opinion."

3DS Friend Code: 0146-9205-4817. Could show as either Chris or Chrysia.